Hillary Clinton cleared by Republicans

[olive]

Republicans Leveled By Bombshell Report That Clears Hillary Clinton On Benghazi


their updated link



http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...assages-224883

[SisterNightroad]

It was time.

[Macfanforever]

Thats old news from 2015 .I found the same link to be first on the Google search.Is there any updates.

[olive]

Originally Posted by Macfanforever

Thats old news from 2015 .I found the same link to be first on the Google search.Is there any updates.

YES
they blame President Obama

Benghazi panel caps 2-year probe: No bombshell, faults administration
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/10/...-benghazi.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/28/politi...llary-clinton/

[SisterNightroad]

Originally Posted by Macfanforever

Thats old news from 2015 .I found the same link to be first on the Google search.Is there any updates.

I didn't see the date written so small from mobile... Good God is this thing ever going to end?

[BlueDenimLamp]

House Benghazi report slams administration response to attacks via the @FoxNews App https://t.co/82jqesnlO3

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) June 28, 2016

A damning report authored by the Republican-led House committee probing the Benghazi terror attacks faulted the Obama administration for a range of missteps before, during and after the fatal 2012 attacks – saying top administration officials huddled to craft their public response while military assets waited hours to deploy to Libya.


The report released Tuesday pointedly blamed a “rusty bureaucratic process” for the slow-moving response the night of the attack. The report said despite orders from President Obama and then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to deploy, the first military force did not do so until more than 13 hours after the attack started.

The report said one anti-terrorism security team known as the FAST unit sat waiting for three hours in Rota, Spain, as Marines changed “in and out of their uniforms four times,” and even debated whether they should carry personal weapons, according to one witness. All together, the report said, “it would take nearly 18 hours” for that team to move.

The report described a web of internal debates and hold-ups, including apparent State Department guidance that “Libya must agree to any deployment,” though Panetta would later say Libya approval was not necessary.

While various officials debated how to proceed, U.S. personnel were under attack at two sites in Benghazi.

In the end, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans -- foreign service officer Sean Smith and former Navy Seals Ty Woods and Glen Doherty -- were killed in the attacks.

In a stunning detail, the report said the security force that helped evacuate U.S. personnel from the so-called “annex” in the end – “likely saving over two dozen lives,” according to the report – was a unit known as Libyan Military Intelligence composed of former military officers under the Qaddafi regime, which the U.S. helped topple.

The CIA did not know that unit existed. “In other words, some of the very individuals the United States had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution were the only Libyans that came to the assistance of the United States on the night of the Benghazi attacks,” the report said.

The committee's work itself was fiercely contested, with Democrats accusing Republican members of trying to politically harm presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time of the attacks.

Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C], asked Americans to "read this report for themselves ... and reach their own conclusions."

At a press conference, Gowdy and other GOP lawmakers lamented that no forces were ordered to Benghazi.

“Nothing was ever coming to Benghazi,” Gowdy said.

Lawmakers contrasted the "heroism" of those on the ground with the discussions in Washington. Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., described the D.C. attitude as "near fecklessness." He said, "They were more concerned about how they’re going to offend the Libyan government than how this rescue is going to take place.”

The findings about the military asset response the night of the attacks contrasted with the relatively robust internal debate over the public narrative regarding the attack – namely, claims that the attacks were sparked by an anti-Islam YouTube video.

Watch Benghazi Select Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., and committee member Rep. Susan Brooks, R-Ind., Tuesday at 6 p.m. ET on Fox News' “Special Report with Bret Baier.”

The committee report identified for the first time a White House meeting that was convened roughly three hours into the attack and included deputies to senior Cabinet members and Clinton.

Stevens was missing at the time. But the report found “much of the conversation focused on the video (which) is surprising given no direct link or solid evidence existed connecting the attacks in Benghazi and the video at the time.”

The report found that “five of the 10 action items from the rough notes of the 7:30 pm meeting reference the video.”

The report also showed that there were top-level calls to have the video removed from the Internet, before any of the forces that were ordered deployed “had actually moved.”

The report, meanwhile, found the video narrative was crafted in Washington by Obama administration appointees and reflected neither eyewitness nor real-time reports from the Americans under attack.

One U.S. agent at the American outpost in Benghazi, whose name was withheld for security reasons, told the committee he first heard “some kind of chanting.”

Then that sound was immediately followed by “explosions” and “gunfire, then roughly 70 people rushing into the compound with an assortment of “AK-47s, grenades, RPG’s … a couple of different assault rifles,” the agent said.

In addition, a senior watch officer at the State Department's diplomatic security command described the Sept. 11, 2012, strikes as "a full on attack against our compound.”

When asked whether he saw or heard a protest prior to the attacks, the officer replied, "zip, nothing, nada," according to the Republican majority report.

“None of the information coming directly from the agents on the ground in Benghazi during the attacks mentioned anything about a video or a protest. The firsthand accounts made their way to the office of the Secretary through multiple channels quickly,” the report concluded.

Five days later, then-United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice went on every national Sunday talk show. She told Fox News Sunday, “What sparked the recent violence was the airing on the Internet of a very hateful, very offensive video that has offended many people around the world.”

The report also said, “Security deficiencies plagued the Benghazi Mission compound in the lead-up to September 2012.”

Panetta told the committee “an intelligence failure” occurred, while former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell also acknowledged an intelligence failure.

The committee proposed 25 recommendations aimed at improving security for U.S. personnel overseas. Among them were: Figuring out who is in charge in such situations, holding joint training exercises, and improving communication.

The GOP report came after a report by the Democrats on the panel saying that security at the Benghazi, Libya facility was “woefully inadequate” but Clinton never personally denied any requests from diplomats for additional protection.

Democrats have long slammed the committee’s work as partisan, and Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon repeated that charge Tuesday.

“Far from honoring the four brave Americans who died, the Benghazi Committee has been a partisan sham since its start,” he tweeted.

State Department spokesman Mark Toner defended the department in a written statement issued shortly before the report’s formal release, while saying the “essential facts” surrounding the attacks have been known “for some time.”

“We have made great progress towards making our posts safer since 2012,” Toner said. “… Our implementation efforts include work to expand the corps of Diplomatic Security personnel, enhance interagency coordination to address threat information, expand the Marine Security Guard program, and accelerate projects to build and upgrade secure facilities.”

He said the department “cooperated extensively with the Select Committee,” providing over 50 current and former employees for interviews and over 100,000 pages of documents.

The report, though, said the department “withheld a number of documents from the Committee based on ‘executive branch confidentiality interests,’ an administration-constructed privilege not recognized by the Constitution.”

[olive]

Originally Posted by SisterNightroad

I didn't see the date written so small from mobile... Good God is this thing ever going to end?

it did today for some reason they link has the date of the old story .. they blame President Obama y

[Macfanforever]

Originally Posted by olive

YES
they blame President Obama

Benghazi panel caps 2-year probe: No bombshell, faults administration
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/10/...-benghazi.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/28/politi...llary-clinton/

Originally Posted by SisterNightroad

I didn't see the date written so small from mobile... Good God is this thing ever going to end?

Originally Posted by BlueDenimLamp

House Benghazi report slams administration response to attacks via the @FoxNews App https://t.co/82jqesnlO3

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) June 28, 2016

Originally Posted by olive

it did today for some reason they link has the date of the old story .. they blame President Obama y

OK guys .Thanks for the updates.

[SisterNightroad]

That's strange because here it says the opposite:

The most revealing paragraph in the House Benghazi report
Updated by Zack Beauchamp on June 28, 2016, 12:10 p.m. ET

The Republican-led House Select Committee on Benghazi has been investigating the attack on the US diplomatic mission in Libya since May 2014. The committee's report, released on Tuesday morning, contains several new details about the attack but finds no new evidence of wrongdoing by Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, nor any new evidence of the administration plotting to hide the truth from the American people. Yet the report spins the evidence as harmful for the administration regardless.

For example, a big question in the highly partisan fight over the Benghazi attack has been whether the Obama administration could have stopped the attack with nearby US military assets but simply chose not to. This has been a theory, in some right-wing circles particularly, for a long time.

The House Select Committee’s report finds that there were no American forces in range, the same conclusion as previous reports. Yet it positions this fact as evidence of the Obama administration’s failures:

The assets ultimately deployed by the Defense Department in response to the Benghazi attacks were not positioned to arrive prior to the final lethal attack on the Annex. The fact that this is true does not mitigate the question of why the world’s most powerful military was not positioned to respond; or why the urgency and ingenuity displayed by team members at the Annex and Team Tripoli was seemingly not shared by all decision makers in Washington.

In other words: The facts find the administration wasn’t responsible for failing to stop the Benghazi attack, but the report tries to spin this evidence in a way that’s bad for Team Obama anyway. You see similar attempts to spin non-damning facts as damning in other parts of the report as well.

This shouldn’t be surprising. In an era of hyperpartisanship and presumptive presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, Republicans have a big incentive to further the anti-administration Benghazi narrative in this kind of report, whether or not the underlying facts support their claims.

Yet nine different bodies have investigated Benghazi: the State Department's Accountability Review Board and eight separate congressional committees or staff reports. Each report has identified problems with the way the incident was handled by US government agencies — which are serious and worth raising — but none has uncovered real evidence of an administration cover-up or failure to properly respond to the attacks.

It would have been shocking if the House Select Committee had found new facts to support this narrative.

It didn’t.


http://www.vox.com/2016/6/28/1205122...port-paragraph

[olive]

Originally Posted by SisterNightroad

That's strange because here it says the opposite:

it's like the Bible you can pick and choose the bits that work for you and ignore the rest

[BlueDenimLamp]

#benghazi Tweets



Here is what the population at large is saying... It's a live feed so you can scroll down through the tweets...

[olive]

Originally Posted by BlueDenimLamp

<


Here is what the population at large is saying... It's a live feed so you can scroll down through the tweets...

the only thing useful about twitter are real time Subway / traffic updates

[SisterNightroad]

Originally Posted by BlueDenimLamp

#benghazi Tweets



Here is what the population at large is saying... It's a live feed so you can scroll down through the tweets...

Maybe we should compare it to what the english population was largely saying until Friday (No offense for Britain itself).

[Macfanforever]

I been on Twitter since years ago when host of Fox and Friends claim that he signed up Stevie on it.I have a couple of tweets to my name since then.its like FB to broadcast what are you doing today.I have no use for Twitter unless I have a business.FB is only good for to stay in contact with relatives and friends.

[becca]

I heard back at the time just afterward that Republicans had obstructed approval of embassy security budgets then haven't heard any more about that.

"Republicans who cut Embassy Security budget say "inadequate resources" partially responsible for Benghazi "